ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 66 -
IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF SUSPENSION OF ONE MONTH FROM THE SERVICE ON
THIRD ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR NICOLAS SELLON OF THE OFFICE OF THE
CITY PROSECUTOR OF CEBU CITY

This refers to the complaint of Atty. Noel
D. Archival against 3rd Assistant City Prosecutor Nicolas Sellon of
Cebu City for delay in resolving a case.

It appears from the records that Prosecutor Sellon on May 9, 1990 the
case of Rogelio Narra, Sr., et al. vs. Jaime Gabunada, et al. in I.S.
Nos. 89-02429 and 2430 for reinvestigation of double frustrated murder
and multiple murder. The cases were initially investigated by
Prosecutor Valentin Suan but the City Prosecutor assigned them to
Prosecutor Sellon for reinvestigation upon motion of one of the
parties. Prosecutor Sellon set the formal investigation of the cases on
June 6, 1990, where after the hearing, he formally terminated the
investigation (t.s.n. p. 12, Sept. 12, 1991). The respondent prosecutor
issued his resolution on the cases on May 20, 1991 modifying the
original resolution of Prosecutor Suan by having Gabunada dropped from
the complaint. Hence, the complaint for undue delay.

Respondent Prosecutor Sellon denies liability for the delay. He claims
that after he had terminated the investigation of the cases on June 6,
1990. Atty. Carlos Cardenas, one of the counsel for complainants in the
above case, requested him to suspend the investigation and defer the
resolution of the same until he can strengthen his case against Jaime
Gabunada. It appears that the witness of Atty. Cardenas failed to
identify Gabunada during the preliminary investigation. Prosecutor
Sellon acceded to the request and that it was on sometime in April 1991
that Atty. Cardenas gave up hope of propping up his evidence against
Jaime Gabunada and asked Prosecutor Sellon to resolve the case.

Atty. Archival, herein complainant, who represents one of the aggrieved
parties in the aforesaid cases and who found that Prosecutor Sellon has
not resolved the same as of May 19, 1991, apparently changed his heart.
In a Manifestation submitted to the Department of Justice, dated
December 12, 1991, he contented that he was merely emotional and that
he learned from his uncle, Atty. Cardenas, that the delay was really
beneficial to their interests. He now seeks to absolve Prosecutor
Sellon stating that the latter indeed merely acceded to the request of
Atty. Cardenas.

The issue is whether or not the liability of Prosecutor Sellon is
erased due to the Manifestation of complainant which seeks for his
absolution.

A close scrutiny of the records indisputably shows the prosecutor's
gross neglect to resolve the case within the period prescribed under
existing rules of the Department of Justice. He cannot evade this
responsibility by claiming that that was the request of Atty. Cardenas,
even if true. The prosecutor controls the proceedings and resolution of
the case, and these cannot be made to depend on the whims or wishes of
the parties-litigants. If he wants to grant the request for deferment
of proceedings, he should have at least come up with the additional
evidence and resolve it within the reglementary period based on the
evidence adduced. To have allowed the parties to set their own sweet
time for the resolution of the case shows utter lack of
sensitivity to the Department policy on the speedy resolution of cases,
which has been repeatedly articulated in many public pronouncements of
the Secretary of Justice. Moreover, the matter of the conduct of
preliminary investigation and its termination are no longer purely
private concern. Being an initial step in the criminal justice process,
it has transcended into a question of public interest beyond the
private parties' sole control. The complainant's subsequent, may
regrettably, belated change of heart and earnest desire to exculpate
the prosecutor after vigorously protesting his actuations in delaying
the case, all the more should alert us on the culpability of the
respondent prosecutor, and with more reason that we seek the imposition
of sanctions against him. Complainant's wavering hand can no longer
halt the inevitable outcome of his own doing which has taken its energy
deriving its power from the unalterable fact that there was a clear
breach of Department policy which cannot be abated by his desistance or
remorse. Public policy and interest demand so. Prosecutor Sellon has no
one to blame but his own cavalier attitude towards established
Department policy.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent Third Assistant City
Prosecutor Nicolas Sellon is hereby found guilty of undue delay
amounting to Neglect of Duty for which he deserves the penalty of one
(1) month suspension from the service.

Done in the City of Manila,
this 10th day of June in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and
ninety-three.